from the what-a-farce dept

This isn't a huge surprise, but unfortunately, today -- after a mostly ridiculous "debate" on the House floor full of claptrap and bullshit about how important copyright is to "protecting jobs" (despite this bill having nothing to do with any of that) -- the House voted 378 to 48 to approve a bill that makes the head of the Copyright Office, the Copyright Register, a Presidential appointment rather than an appointment by the Library of Congress, as it's been throughout the entire history of the Copyright Office. As we pointed out just yesterday, Congress appears to be rushing this through for no clear reason. It held no hearings on the issue (other than the fact that the current Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, was getting ready to appoint her own Copyright Register).

Again, every reason given by supporters of this bill doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. They claimed, falsely, that copyright creates 5 million jobs (one Rep -- Tony Cardenas -- even claimed that the Copyright Register "oversees" those jobs). But this is not true. They claimed that the Copyright Office needs to be modernized -- which is true. But Carla Hayden has already commenced a massive modernization project, which this bill will stop dead in its tracks. They claimed that this would provide "greater oversight" over how the Copyright Office is run, but that's not even remotely true. The bill actually takes away the oversight from the Librarian of Congress... and gives it to no one other than the President, who isn't likely to be paying much attention to what's happening at the Copyright Office.

This bill serves no purpose other than to take power away from the Librarian of Congress and give it to powerful lobbyists who will have a major say in who runs the Copyright Office. The bill will now move to the Senate where it is also likely to get an easy approval, and no doubt the President will sign the bill (which gives him more power, even if he's shown little sign of actually appointing people to the nearly 500 open positions which this will add to). It's a bad bill, and it's a gift to Hollywood, even as it will harm the actual content creators who will have to wait even longer for the office to actually be modernized.

from the what's-the-hurry? dept

In the past few weeks, we've written a few times about this weird urgency among some in Congress to rush through a pretty major change to Copyright Office oversight. I wrote a deep dive piece over at The Verge discussing the issues at play, but Congress is pushing a bill to stop the new Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, from appointing a new head of the Copyright Office. Instead, the Congressional plan is to make the position a political appointee, nominated by the President, and approved by Congress. In that Verge piece, we explained why it was a major change, and scratched our heads at the fact that there appears to be no reason for pushing for this change other than (1) the legacy copyright industries know that their lobbying power will mean that the appointment will be to their liking and (2) they fear who Hayden might appoint. But, what's really odd is how quickly Congress is trying to push this through. As if the matter is incredibly urgent. There have been no hearings on the matter. There's been no public discussion on the pros and cons of such a move. Just a mad dash by a bunch of people in Congress to make this change official before Hayden can appoint someone.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren -- who appears to be one of the few people in Congress questioning why this is happening -- has put out a statement highlighting why this move is so problematic. A key point: if there is such a rush to make the change, how does it make sense to put this appointment power in the hands of a President who has left hundreds of federal jobs completely empty without any nominations at all?

... this legislation will harm and delay much-needed modernization efforts by making the Register a Presidentially appointed position. Currently, there is a backlog of 495 Appointee positions that have not even been nominated. This not only will delay effective administration of the Copyright Office, but also puts the efficiency gains made by the Library at risk. Under current modernization plans, the Library believes it can speed up the modernization plan by almost two years and save significant amounts of money. Those plans depend on an active Register of Copyright who is compliant and accountable to the Librarian. The long delay created by this bill in needing Senate confirmation of a Register will only harm these efforts.

In other words, the arguments for "urgency" because the Copyright Register position is currently vacant are undermining their own argument. Considering the nearly 500 federal government positions that have no nominees yet, who actually thinks that Trump will quickly get around to nominating a new Copyright Register, let alone having that person confirmed by the Senate? The current Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, on the other hand, has been reviewing candidates for months now and is likely close to having someone in place.

Similarly, as noted above, if (as is the typical line) this move is necessary to "modernize the Copyright Office," this plan does the exact opposite of that. Hayden has already put forth a plan to modernize the Copyright Office (and has experience modernizing a massive library system). But if the Copyright Office boss has to be nominated by a President who doesn't seem to feel like nominating anyone, and then approved by the Senate, the modernization plan will almost certainly be delayed. So why are supporters of this bill in such a rush if it's going to undermine and delay the key reason they give for supporting this bill: the modernization of the Copyright Office? It's almost as if that's not the real reason.

Separately, Lofgren points out that it's crazy to provide less oversight to the Copyright Office right after it's been revealed that one reason why Hayden likely fired the the previous Copyright Register was because of incredible mismanagement by the previous Register, that included a modernization program that was budgeted for less than $2 million, but ended up spending nearly $12 million before being dumped with nothing to show for it (as we first revealed here on Techdirt).

Removing Dr. Hayden’s ability to appoint the Register of Copyrights means she will be unable to hold employees accountable, and it creates uncertainty and ambiguity in the chain of command between the Librarian and Register of Copyrights.

The previous Register of Copyrights was removed after a Library of Congress Inspector General report found the Copyright Office not only wasted six years and nearly $12 million but hid this information from Congress, falsified information in reports to the Library, and submitted fake budget numbers for annual appropriations requests.

Dr. Hayden took appropriate steps to remove the Register responsible for this mismanagement. This bill would prevent Dr. Hayden from removing or ensuring accountability in any future Register by making the Register answerable only to the President -- a fundamental change in the relationship between Librarian and Register.

Finally, Lofgren notes that it certainly is at least notable and unfortunate that this move to rush through this change certainly appears to be an attempt by Congress to undermine the authority of the first female and first African American Librarian of Congress.

Finally, the bill is a clear affront to the first female Librarian of Congress. Dr. Carla Hayden is not only one of the most highly qualified Librarians ever to serve, but has also worked aggressively and in good faith to pull the Library and Copyright office into the 21st century. I find it deeply disturbing that for the first time in history, a female and a person of color is the Librarian of Congress, and for the first time in history, Congress would take away her power in order to give it to Donald Trump. While this does not point to motive, it is a distressing fact nevertheless.

This bill is a vote of ‘no confidence’ in a Librarian who is aggressively pulling the Library and Copyright Office into the 21st century and, by all evidence, justifiably reassigned an ineffective and negligent Register. It will only serve to delay Copyright Office modernization, harm the public, harm content creators, increase tension between the Library and Copyright Office, and harm Copyright Office employees.

Indeed. There are certainly arguments to be made for changing things up, but no one pushing for this bill seems to be able to answer why this needs to be changed so quickly, when such a change clearly undermines their own stated reasons for supporting the bill. From that, the most logical conclusion is that they are pushing for the change because they are worried about who Hayden is likely to appoint, rather than because of any principled argument.

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

Previously unreleased documents acquired by Techdirt show, fairly conclusively, that Congress will be making a huge and dangerous mistake if it moves forward with changing how the head of the Copyright Office is appointed. And despite the fact that the RIAA & MPAA are eagerly supporting this change, the people it will hurt the most are content creators. Because the Copyright Office is basically incompetent when it comes to modernizing its technology. That's what was found by a thorough (but not publicly released) Inspector General's report, detailing how the Copyright Office not only threw away $11.6 million on a new computer system that it said would cost $1.1 million, but also lied to both Congress and the Library of Congress about it, pretending everything was going great.

In reality the project was a complete and utter disaster. It was put together by people who seemed to have no clue how to manage a large IT project, and there was basically zero effort to fix that along the way. After literally wasting $11.6 million on nothing, the entire project was scrapped in October of last year.

The timing here is important. October is when Carla Hayden reassigned Maria Pallante, effectively firing her. Pallante had led the Copyright Office since 2011 (soon after the big project began), so she was in charge through the vast majority of this disastrous project. While legacy copyright folks tried to spread evidence-free conspiracy theories about why Hayden fired Pallante, it seems a lot more likely that it was because Pallante had overseen a project that flat out wasted $11.6 million, and during the course of the project the Copyright Office repeatedly lied to the Library of Congress about its status.

But here's the astounding thing. Congress is trying to reward the Copyright Office for this scandal, and give it more power and autonomy despite this absolute disaster. Perhaps because, until now, the Copyright Office has been successful in keeping this whole thing hidden.

As we've mentioned, Congress is effectively trying to move the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress by having the new Register of Copyright (who heads the Office) be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate (i.e., making it a political appointee), rather than be appointed by the Librarian of Congress as has been the case since the creation of the Copyright Office. One of the key arguments in favor of this is that the Copyright Office is woefully behind on technology, and needs to be modernized. Almost exactly two years ago, a fairly scathing report from the GAO came out about the lack of leadership on IT issues from then-Librarian of Congress James Billington. Thankfully, Billington is gone and Carla Hayden is in charge now -- and she actually has a history of modernizing a library. Reports from folks at the Library say that Hayden has moved quickly to establish a real modernization plan for the entire Library, including the Copyright Office, and that those efforts are already starting to move forward.

And that's got to be better than giving the Copyright Office autonomy to modernize itself. As we're releasing here for the very first time publicly, an Inspector's General report looking at various IT projects related to the Library of Congress is absolutely devastating in revealing how incompetent the Copyright Office is at modernizing itself. Specifically, in 2010, the Copyright Office asked for $1.1 million it said it would need to build its Electronic Licensing System (eLi). Just about everything turned out to be a complete disaster and a waste of money. From the executive summary of the report:

[The Copyright Office] did not follow sound [Systems Development Life Cycle -- SDLC] methodologies which resulted in it scrapping the eLi project development after six years and $11.6M in project expenditures. The eLi project began in 2010 with a budget approval of $1.1M, and increased to approximately $2M for full implementation in 2012. Ultimately Copyright spent over $11.6M through 2016 when it decided to terminate the contracts and abandon development activities. During that six-year period, Copyright continued to report in eLCplans (the Library's performance management system) that eLi development was occurring near or on schedule.

Again, this is horrifying. Not only did it waste more than 5x what it had been given budget approval for, and not only did it end up with nothing to show for all this money, it also lied about how the project was going so those in the Library of Congress had no idea that the Copyright Office was basically lighting money on fire. It also appears that because of this, the Copryight Office misrepresented what was happening to Congress in its annual budget requests. From the report:

Copyright executives at that time did not disclose in the Library's performance management system (eLCplans) and annual Congressional Budget Justifications the magnitude of issues and cost overruns related to the project. As a result, Congress and Library executives did not have adequate information to timely act on and address the issues.

Again, forget those conspiracy theories about Pallante getting fired. Lying to your bosses in your annual budget requests about the status of a massive technology project that was way behind and way over budget certainly seems like a fireable offense.

A big part of the problem? What appears to be near-total incompetence by the Copyright Office in putting together and managing the project.

The USCO project management team did not demonstrate effective, proactive project cost management practices. Over the six-year development period, USCO project management expended $11.6 million in vendor costs. The USCo project management team received specific funding for approximately $1.9 million in the first two years of the project. USCO project management did not update project budgets for the subsequent six years of development activity, nor perform an analysis of estimated cost overruns. Subsequent development funding activites ocurred, inconsistent with initial funding requests. As discussed below, the USCO had no management body to evaluate and approve additional funding requests in conjunction with experienced development delays, analyses, and recommended courses of actions. Additionally, the USCO did not have an oversight body with authority to halt project activites based on cost overruns, delviery delays, and/or lack of functionality until appropriate remediation plans or project management structure was in place.

Basically, the ship was almost entirely rudderless when Pallante was in charge. Ask for $1.9 million, spend $11.6 million -- without getting a working system -- and no one seemed to check on any of it.

According to the report, the most basic project management concepts were completely lacking at the Copyright Office. Pages 26 through 28 of the document embedded below should elicit gasps from anyone who's done any kind of project management. I won't detail all of it, but here are just a few highlights:

No monitoring of the project schedule

No project budget approval process at all

No periodic reviews to see if things were on schedule and within budget

No project management framework at all

No comprehensive project management plan for the executiion and monitoring of the project.

No official tracking of scope and schedule changes

No documentation of departures from planned schedule

No plan for what staffing was needed for the project

No analysis of alternatives

No system requirements baseline

No system development plan

No requirements for best practices, customer oversight or acceptance of the vendor

No technical requirements to ensure user functionality given to the vendor

No details on deliverables given to the vendor (seriously -- no requirements to hand over the code or any documentation)

No review criteria

No defined technical framework

No security testing

And, again, that's just some of the problems listed in the document. There are more.

Rather than admit any of that, the Copyright Office under Pallante pretended each year that everything was moving ahead without a problem. The report includes the comments that the Copyright Office gave to the Library of Congress each year for its Congressional Budget Justification regarding the system:

If you can't see that, basically every year all the Copyright Office said was "licensing will continue implementing and refining the reengineered processes and system" (or, in the past two years, that "licensing will continue to work toward a fully automated system for receiving and examining Statements of Account"). This despite the fact that the project was way over budget and apparently totally non-functional.

The report also includes the Copyright Office's internal reporting to the Library, in which it needed to give a status report in one of three color codings: green if the project was on-track, amber if it was behind target but adjustments could result in accomplishing the plan on time, and red if it would not meet the annual target. Given what we know now, these should have been red every year. Instead... in 2011, 2013, and 2015 the Copyright Office reported "green." In 2012 it reported "amber." In 2010, 2014, and 2016 the Copyright Office didn't even bother to report on this project status at all.

The most amazing thing here is that Pallante wasn't fired years ago for this complete disaster of a project.

But the more important question right now is why would Congress be looking to give the Copyright Office more autonomy when it's quite clear that the Office has absolutely no competency when it comes to modernizing its system, and there has been a six-year pattern of throwing away money without a properly managed plan and a longstanding practice of lying about it to Congress itself?

Last week, despite all of this, nearly the entire House Judiciary Committee voted to let this happen, and all I can ask is what were they thinking? Why is Congress -- and Reps. Bob Goodlatte and John Conyers in particular -- rewarding this behavior?

At the request of the Library of Congress' Inspector General's Office, we have made a few small redactions to parts of the report that were not related to this story above.

The removing of Pallante kciked off a bunch of ridiculous conspiracy theories that made little sense and had almost no basis in reality. It's pretty clear that Pallante was removed from her job because she had actively, and publicly, reached out to Congress to ask that she no longer have to report to Hayden. That seems like fairly basic insubordination and a fairly standard reason why a boss might fire you.

Either way, the fuss over Pallante losing her job resulted in Hayden promising to listen to all stakeholders about who should replace Pallante. To that end, she launched an online survey asking people what they'd like to see in a new Copyright Office boss. Frankly, this... feels kind of gimmicky and silly. Hayden got the job she got because she actually understands a lot of these issues. Yes, she should absolutely be listening to the public and weighing lots of thoughts, but an online survey... just feels like the wrong mechanism. And, of course, such things are prone to ballot stuffing (from all sides). If you look around, it's not hard to find some fairly crazy and "not-quite-in-touch-with-reality" groups and individuals who are telling people just how to stuff the ballot box, including some nonsense that completely misrepresents the role.

So I'm not going to tell anyone how they should fill out the survey, but I would suggest that people think carefully about what role the head of the Copyright Office should play. Should it be a job where the focus is on protecting the interests of a few gatekeepers who have spent years sucking up the copyrights of actual creators while claiming to represent artists? Or should it be someone who is focused on the actual job of the Copyright Office, such as modernizing the role of the copyright office, making it easier to research who holds copyrights on what works, and who is actually focused on the core principles of copyright law -- that it promote the progress of science -- as laid out in the Constitution?

The online survey closes tomorrow, Tuedsay January 31st (possibly today by the time you're reading this), so please get your thoughts in sooner rather than later.

from the that's-just-wrong dept

I thought we were done with this. After cooler heads prevailed, and people realized that the giant conspiracy theory over "Google's" supposed string pulling to get the Register of Copyright fired, actual reporters stepped in and discovered it wasn't true. The reasons behind the firing were much more mundane (and for what it's worth, one of our commenters has a credible explanation for how one longtime anti-Google propagandist was the key force in spreading the claim in the first place).

Notice a problem there? Yeah, the WSJ editorial board doesn't seem to know the difference between copyrights and patents. And yet it thinks it knows what's going on. Okay, but you say that this is just in the subhead, and headline writers get this wrong all the time. Sure, but that doesn't explain all the other fundamental errors in the editorial itself.

Most Americans think of Google as a search engine doing unalloyed social good, but the company also wants to make money and wield political influence along the way. So you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to notice that an abrupt change of leadership at the U.S. Copyright Office is good news for Google, which aims to pay less for profiting from the property of others.

Actually, yes, you kind of do have to be a conspiracy theorist, because everyone who has any actual knowledge of what's gone on has said it's not even close to true. And furthermore, Google does not "aim to pay less for profiting from the property of others." Whatever legitimate complaints plenty of people may have about Google, it's focus is not on profiting off of others' content, but in "making the world's information accessible." But, of course, to a company like News Corp that has failed to adapt to the internet, and which has directly branded Google as "the enemy" it's no surprise that it would misrepresent what Google does and what it wants. But that doesn't mean it gets to make up facts. Though it tries.

There is some circumstantial evidence that Google’s lobbying influence was brought to bear in removing Ms. Pallante, though both Google and Ms. Pallante declined to talk to us. Google’s business model is essentially making money off other people’s content, and the company’s strategy has been to infringe on copyrighted material like books and fight it out later in court. The copyright office administers laws that protect owners.

So, uh, once again we see the WSJ get basic factual things wrong here. "Infringe on copyrighted material like books and fight it out later in court." An honest publication would point out that Google easily won its lawsuit at both the district and appeals court level, with both saying that Google's actions were fair use and thus not infringement. For the WSJ to flat out lie and claim that Google was infringing is ridiculous. And suggests either a failure to understand the basics of copyright law, or a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to slam Google.

And, once again, the claim that it's Google's business model to "make money off other people's content" is not true. It's not Google's business models. Google's business model is to capture people's attention by providing a search engine that gets people to reveal their preferences -- and then Google shoves ads that may be responsive to those preferences in front of them. Whatever you think of that business model, it's not what the WSJ says.

Hell, if Google's business model was really predicated off of making money on other people's content, shouldn't News Corp be beating the pants off them, since it has its own content first?

For example, Ms. Pallante’s office opposed a Justice Department interpretation of licensing that would have undercut collaborations. As it happens, that change was reportedly pushed by a former outside counsel for Google who had moved over to Justice. Ms. Pallante’s view won in court.

This is a part of the propaganda myth that's made the rounds on a few sites. It ignores the fact that the fractional licensing debate was a big complex issue with many, many people arguing that the DOJ's interpretation of the consent decree was correct. Yes, one of the people at the DOJ had a very loose connection in the distant past to Google, but the idea that the DOJ was making decisions for Google is made up out of thin air. Also wrong is the idea that "Ms. Pallante's view won in court." The challenges to the DOJ's interpretation have just started. A judge has effectively put a hold on the interpretation for now, but it's far from litigated.

Again, it's as if the WSJ just got its talking points off of anti-Google conspiracy theory sites and ran with it, without bothering to check with anyone who actually understands the facts.

The conspiracy theories continue, trying to tie an offshoot Public Knowledge tweet into some sort of proof:

Something else happened in September: Ms. Pallante got a new boss when Ms. Hayden was sworn in as Librarian of Congress, a presidential appointment. Ms. Hayden formerly ran the American Library Association, which takes a permissive view of copyright law and accepts money from, you guessed it, Google. A month later Ms. Pallante was pushed out. The trade press had barely noticed the news when Public Knowledge tweeted: “Big news @CopyrightOffice today.”

Um. This is ridiculous. First of all, the ALA is a widely respected organization, not one driven by Google. And Hayden was President of the ALA in 2003 and 2004 when Google had zero lobbying presence and almost certainly no direct connection to the ALA. More than two years after Hayden was no longer at the ALA the NY Times was reporting on how Google was finally taking its first baby steps (awkwardly) into the world of DC politics. The claim that her Presidency of the ALA means she's connected to Google is tripe.

As for the Public Knowledge tweet -- the very first reporting on the Pallante news included the claim that Hayden had called various trade groups (focusing on the pro-copyright ones) to let them know of her decision before the news broke. Hell, even I heard about it before the news broke from a friend in DC (who's not at Google and never worked for Google) who sent me a text message with the news about an hour before the news officially broke, and well before Public Knowledge's tweet. That's not evidence of a Google connection. That's evidence that the news of change at the Copyright Office quickly spread among the various folks working on copyright issues.

The plot here is familiar. In 2012 Google’s deputy general counsel and head of patents, Michelle Lee, was selected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to run its Silicon Valley branch—and less than two years later President Obama nominated her to lead the U.S. office. This tilt of power was remarkable: Apple’s Steve Jobs had vowed earlier to go “thermonuclear” over disputes with Google’s Android. In a strange coincidence, many such disputes were soon settled.

No, it's not. Yes, Michelle Lee used to work at Google. And yes, she went to the USPTO. And since there I think she's been much better than her predecessor, but it's not like she's jumped on the anti-patent bandwagon or anything. The fact that Google's patent disputes settled (which, uh, isn't actually true) has nothing to do with Lee, who would have no power to get involved in litigation between two private companies over patents.

That's not how it works. And if the WSJ editorial board spoke to any human being who actually understood how the system worked, they'd know that.

... anyone tempted to write off the Pallante dispute as bureaucratic squabbling should remember: The company’s goal is to defenestrate laws that protect property. The guarantee to own what you create is the reason entrepreneurs take the risks that power the economy—a reason guys like Larry Page and Sergey Brin start Google.

This is ridiculous. I've had plenty of conversations with policy and legal folks at Google working on intellectual property issues. And I'm much, much, much more open to the idea that we should drastically scale back those laws than anything anyone at Google has ever supported. The people I've spoken to at Google about these issues are mainly focused on making sure that copyright law doesn't get in the way of an open internet, mainly because that harms Google's search products, and not because of some innate desire to to "defenestrate laws that protect property."

from the nothing-doing-here dept

Last week, we wrote about the big news in the copyright realm, where the new Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, removed the Register of Copyrights (the head of the Copyright Office), Maria Pallante, from her job. Technically, Hayden reassigned Pallante to a new job in the Library of Congress, but Pallante rejected that offer and resigned. While we -- and some others -- pointed out that this was a good opportunity to reshape the Copyright Office away from being a taxpayer-funded lobbying organization for Hollywood, some folks who support ever more draconian copyright immediately jumped on all sorts of conspiracy theories about how this was really Google somehow firing Pallante, including one site that directly had that as a headline.

To anyone who actually had knowledge of what was going on, this made no sense. Hayden is not connected to Google in any way. This is just out and out tinfoil hat conspiracy theory territory from people who see "Google" behind any policy they dislike. It seemed rather obvious that, like just about any new CEO of an organization, Hayden was clearing out some senior staff for a variety of reasons. And there was a pretty obvious big reason why Hayden would like to reassign Pallante: she has been directly and publicly advocating for Congress to move the Copyright Office outside of the Library of Congress. If you came in to run an organization and one of your direct reports was going over your head to try to transfer an entire division somewhere else, it's likely you'd fire that person too. It's kind of a management 101 thing.

Over the past week, in talking to a few people at the Library of Congress, or close to it, this is the basic story that came out. Hayden didn't feel comfortable with Pallante publicly advocating against the Library of Congress, and used her role as the boss to remove her from that position. Others seem to be discovering the same thing. A report at Publisher's Weekly notes that the conspiracy theories are bunk:

“If Congress wants to remove the Copyright Office, it can do so,” explained one source, who did not want to be identified. “But, for now, it is part of the Library of Congress.” The source added that Hayden couldn’t be expected to lead the Copyright Office forward with a subordinate pushing Congress for the agency's independence at the same time. At press time, LoC officials had not yet commented

Another close observer, who also did not want to be identified, agreed and said there was no shadowy Silicon Valley plot to remove Pallante and “jam in” a more tech industry-friendly Register, as some reports have suggested.

From what I can tell, the "tech" industry was just as surprised about this as anyone else. Even the Authors Guild, which initially rang the alarm bells is now slowly, calming down and realizing that it may have overreacted. In an update, it notes that Hayden doesn't appear to have been taking orders from the tech industry. She also told them that she believes that the Library of Congress shouldn't be taking a major role in policy making:

When we asked Dr. Hayden whether she intended to respect the traditional role of the Copyright Office setting policy without interference from the Library, she very clearly stated that she does not intend to weigh in on copyright law or policy. She said that policy and legislative efforts are the domain of Congress, not the Library. Her job, she explained, requires her to ensure that the Copyright Office has the technology and resources for the proper operations of the registration and recordation systems. She was sympathetic with our desire to see the Copyright Office receive the funding necessary to create a robust registration and recordation system that meets 21st-century needs.

Of course, what's not entirely clear from that statement is if it means that the Copyright Office should also go back to its more traditional role of focusing on registering copyrights and similarly not weighing in on copyright law or policy. If she says that's not the role for the Library of Congess, then doesn't that also apply to the Copyright Office since it is a part of the Library?

Either way, I know it's popular for some people to assume any conspiracy theory around "Google" must be true (and, just you watch, someone in the comments here will now try to rope this post and me into that conspiracy), but this one comes up empty once you actually look at the details. It won't stop the conspiracy theorists, but they can spin their wheels with their tinfoil hats, whiteboards and theories about sea creatures.

U.S. Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante was removed from her job Friday morning (Oct. 21) by the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who has authority over the Copyright Office. Officially, Pallante has been appointed as a senior adviser for digital strategy for the Library of Congress, although it’s clear she was asked to step down. Karyn Temple Claggett, currently associate register of copyrights, has been appointed the acting register.

Pallante was locked out of the Library of Congress computer system this morning, according to two sources who spoke with Library employees. Earlier, Hayden had called several members of Congress to tell them about her decision. Later, she called the heads of several media business trade organizations to give them the news, according to one who received such a call.

There are all sorts of rumors flying about this. Pallante has, apparently, been advocating strongly for moving the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress, and either making it an independent agency or linking it up with the Patent & Trademark Office under the Commerce Department. That would be a big mistake, frankly, because copyright is not supposed to be about "commerce" and "industry" but about benefiting the public. That's why it makes sense to leave it as part of the Library of Congress.

Still, when Hayden was first announced, basically all of the copyright maximalist front groups put out statements vaguely suggesting that they'd support Hayden if she promises to leave the Copyright Office alone. It would appear that Hayden has decided not to take that advice. Of course, there are some concerns about what Pallante will do in advising on digitization at the Library of Congress (see update above, noting she is not accepting the position), but it does seem odd that at basically the same time this news leaked, I received notice that the the Library of Congress was going to start archiving Techdirt (yes, this is 100% a coincidence, but a funny one):

That said, the Copyright Office really could use new leadership. As we've been discussing, the Copyright Office has a pretty long history basically acting as a lobbying arm for Hollywood, which seems highly questionable. Pallante's legacy is definitely marred by the fact that she came out as a strong supporter of SOPA early on. And this year, the Copyright Office seems focused on pushing a bunch of bad ideas on copyright reform, including a nefarious plan to strip many websites of their DMCA safe harbors. We're also still completely perplexed as to why the Copyright Office flat out misrepresented copyright law to the FCC concerning its set-top box plan. The Copyright Office simply lied about how fair use works. That's scary.

That said, I should admit that I don't think Pallante herself was as bad as some critics made her out to be (though she did surround herself with a lot of people with really bad ideas). She at least seemed marginally better than some of the previous heads of the Copyright Office, and was actually at least slightly open to some good ideas on copyright reform (and plenty of bad ones). But it does seem like today's Copyright Office needs someone who isn't just representing Hollywood's viewpoint and recognizes that copyright itself is supposed to benefit the public first and foremost -- something Pallante denies.

Pallante's temporary replacement, Karyn Temple Claggett, is unlikely to change very much. Beyond it just being an interim position, Claggett came to the Copyright Office after working for many years at the RIAA, where she helped in the litigation against Grokster, Limewire, XM and Usenet.com. This is not exactly someone who recognizes the changing nature of the internet and says "let's embrace it."

So now the big question is really what happens next. Lots of people are gearing up for a fight over who will take over the Copyright Office on a permanent basis. Is it going to be someone who comes from that world where copyright is supposed to only benefit the big copyright gatekeepers? Or will it be someone with a more nuanced view on how copyright works, how it's supposed to benefit the public by providing tools for creators. Either way, it seems like the fight over this is going to get messy. You already have lobbyists whispering to the press about how awful all of this is:

That executive, and others who represent creators and media businesses in Washington, D.C., expressed surprise and dismay that Pallante, who had the job since 2011, had been removed. “The people in the creative community are furious about the fact that this was done,” says a lawyer who works for organizations that support strong copyright laws, “but especially about the way it was done.”

Wait just a second here. How the hell can the RIAA/MPAA's of the world claim that they represent "the creative community"? That's bullshit. They represent a few large gatekeepers, who have a long history of screwing over the actual creative community any chance they get. More and more of the actual creative community these days have found that the internet is a wonderful tool for creating, promoting, distributing and monetizing their works -- and they recognize that the legacy industries and overly oppressive copyright laws get in the way of that, rather than helping. But, no matter what, you can bet that when a new Copyright Register is announced, we'll see more of this kind of misleading language and attacks -- and it will be something of a preview for the eventual fight over actual copyright reform bills that are expected to show up in the relatively near future.

from the yippee dept

Here's some good news. After decades of ridiculously bad management, it appears that the Library of Congress has a real leader. Dr. Carla Hayden has been approved by the Senate as our new Librarian of Congress by a wide margin, 74 to 18. And that's despite a last minute push by the ridiculous Heritage Foundation to argue that the Librarian of Congress should not be a librarian (and one with tremendous administrative experience). Heritage Foundation's alerts can often sway Republican Senators, so the fact that only 18 still voted against her is quite something. Hayden was also able to get past ridiculous claims that she was pro-obscenity or pro-piracy based on people who just didn't like the idea of an actually qualified person in the position.

She's an exceptionally qualified librarian with administrative and leadership experience. And while I'm sure I won't agree with everything she does, it seems like a massive improvement on the previous librarian, James Billington, who famously resisted any kind of modernization efforts, and who the Government Accountability Office had to call out multiple times for his leadership failings. Billington was so bad that when he resigned, the Washington Post was able to get people to go on the record celebrating.

The reaction inside the library was almost gleeful, as one employee joked that some workers were thinking of organizing a conga line down Pennsylvania Avenue. Another said it felt like someone opened a window.

“There is a general sense of relief, hope and renewal, all rolled into one feeling,” said one staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “Like a great weight has been lifted from our shoulders.”

Maureen Moore, who retired in 2005 but volunteers at the library, said she and her friends were thrilled.

“It’s a great day for the library. The man has had 27 years to do good things, and he hasn’t,” she said.

It's a low bar, but Hayden will almost certainly be better than that -- and hopefully a lot better as well. She's shown in the past a willingness to stand up and fight against government surveillance and for freedom of speech and access to information. Her positions on copyright are less clear, but as she's now in charge of the Copyright Office, hopefully she'll bring some much needed balance to that office, and a greater recognition, as a librarian, of the importance of access to information, rather than locking up all info.

Of course, given all that, I can pretty much guarantee that Hollywood and other legacy copyright industries are going to pump up their fight to move the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress, and either set it up as its own agency, or dump it into the Dept. of Commerce, perhaps as part of the Patent and Trademark Office. Expect to see a big push on that very soon, including all sorts of bullshit arguments in favor of it. But remember, copyright was designed to benefit the public, and not as some sort of commercial tool that belongs in the Dept. of Commerce.

from the are-you-fucking-crazy? dept

We were both surprised and happy when President Obama nominated the obviously well qualified Carla Hayden to be the new Librarian of Congress to succeed James Billington, whose tenure was considered such a disaster that staffers literally celebrated when he left:

The reaction inside the library was almost gleeful, as one employee joked that some workers were thinking of organizing a conga line down Pennsylvania Avenue. Another said it felt like someone opened a window.

“There is a general sense of relief, hope and renewal, all rolled into one feeling,” said one staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “Like a great weight has been lifted from our shoulders.”

Maureen Moore, who retired in 2005 but volunteers at the library, said she and her friends were thrilled.

“It’s a great day for the library. The man has had 27 years to do good things, and he hasn’t,” she said.

When you get quotes like that -- especially on the record -- for someone retiring from a longstanding job, you know things were bad. And Hayden appears by almost any measure to be perfect for the job. She's run large libraries, showing that she has the knowledge and administrative skills to run the Library of Congress. She's also got experience dealing with a variety of policy issues, including ones around surveillance and access to information. I've spoken to many people who either know or have worked with Hayden, and I can't recall ever hearing such levels of praise about anyone.

But, of course, some are unhappy about this. But with such a supremely qualified nominee, the attacks have been weird and getting weirder. We recently wrote about a laughable complaint that Hayden was "pro-obscenity" because she fought against mandatory porn filters on all computers in libraries. And now someone has pointed out a complaint from Hans von Spakovsky from the Heritage Foundation, claiming that Hayden is unqualified for the position... because she's a librarian. Really.

But the library’s enormous staff (3,244) already numbers countless credentialed librarians -- the institution is hardly in need of another. That’s why the post of librarian of Congress has long been filled not by librarians, but by first-rank scholars and historians of national reputation. The librarian of Congress is in effect the nation’s “scholar-in-chief.”

First of all, for someone advocating for a "scholar in chief" -- it seems rather ironic that they insist the number of librarians in the Library of Congress is "countless" when he's already given us the upper bound of employees at the Library (3,244). Now I'm no math expert, but surely this means that the number of librarians must be somewhat less than 3,244? And, last I checked, a number less than 3,244 remains... well... countable.

But, more to the point: WTF? To argue that a librarian shouldn't lead the Library of Congress seems... ridiculous. And it's not as if Hayden is being shifted from the checkout desk of a small regional library to the Librarian of Congress position. She's been running the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore as its CEO and helped modernize and totally refresh that library. Meanwhile, von Spakovsky goes on to praise Billington as a scholar, despite the fact that basically everyone at the library despised him, and multiple reports had found that he basically ignored his job to focus on hobnobbing with the rich and famous. The Government Accountability Office put out a report noting that there was a massive leadership vacuum at the Library of Congress under Billington. And this is the guy that von Spakovsky praises as "a scholar"? If that's what a scholar does, give me the librarian with actual administrative experience any day.

Of course, the real whining from von Spakovsky is what's pretty blatantly stated in his post: he's upset that President Obama pointed out the fact that Hayden would be the first woman or first African American to hold the post of Librarian of Congress. From that, he twists that statement into pretending it means those details are a part of her qualifications, or perhaps, her only qualifications.

Yet according to the president, among the chief qualifications for the office of Librarian of Congress -- the chief administrator of the world’s largest library -- are color and gender.

Except that's bullshit. Nowhere did the President suggest any such thing. This is blatant dog whistle politics where the Heritage Foundation wants to pretend that this nomination is somehow an act of "affirmative action," rather than an eminently qualified individual, who also happens to be female and black. The fact that the President pointed this out was not because it spoke to her qualifications, but because it's a fact that the Librarian has always been a white male. It's a noteworthy point, not a qualification.

Really, if these are the best "attacks" that anyone can come up with regarding Hayden, I'm fairly confident that she's clearly ready for the job. No one can find anything legitimate against her, so they go with this kind of crap.

from the that's-the-best-you've-got? dept

Last week, we wrote about the exciting decision by President Obama to nominate Dr. Carla Hayden to be the next Librarian of Congress. As we noted at the time, she seemed immensely qualified for the position, having successfully run and modernized the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore. She also clearly recognized the importance of open access and access to culture. Given the job, there's really no honest reason that people can find to criticize the choice. She seems almost perfectly qualified for the position.

But, of course, there are some critics, and boy, are they reaching deep in the depths of inanity to attack this choice. A key issue, of course, is that the Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress, so Hayden would run the Copyright Office as well. In our original post, we already noted the rather snide statement put out by the RIAA, which basically says "Hayden's fine for the library, but she better keep her filthy hands off of the Copyright Office":

“We are gratified that President Obama has chosen a qualified and capable nominee to be the next Librarian of Congress. We look forward to working with Dr. Hayden.

“It is worth noting that the Library of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office have been mutually respectful of each other’s areas of expertise. We would hope that the new Librarian would continue to demonstrate that respect for the Copyright Office’s expertise in copyright policy and recommendations to Congress.”

This is bullshit, of course. Basically, the Copyright Office has been ignored by the Librarian of Congress, because the last Librarian basically ignored his job, focusing on hobnobbing with rich people in fancy locations, asking them for money. The MPAA's statement wasn't quite as bad, but did laughably claim that they hope she'll honor "the role of copyright as a driver of knowledge and creativity" which is not a particularly accurate statement:

“We congratulate Dr. Carla Hayden on her nomination. The Librarian of Congress plays
a pivotal role for the copyright industries and the nation as a whole as the custodian of
our intellectual and cultural heritage. We look forward to learning more during the
confirmation process about Dr. Hayden’s vision for leading the Library and honoring
the role of copyright as a driver of knowledge and creativity, as well as an engine of our
nation’s economic growth and positive trade balance.”

“We in the Copyright Community hope that Dr. Hayden will demonstrate a deep respect for the value of copyright; appreciate and support the value of authorship to our culture and the laws that protect that authorship; cultivate a direct relationship with the Register of the Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, and continue the deference that the Librarian of Congress has historically demonstrated to the Register of Copyrights.”

But from there, the complaints really stretch the bounds of reality. First up, there's old friend of the blog, perpetually angrily confused musician David Lowery, who breathlessly announced his horror at the fact that the "former director of [a] P2P Piracy Alliance" had endorsed Hayden. Of course, what Lowery leaves out entirely, is the fact that the individual in question, Adam Eisgrau, works for the American Library Association, the exceptionally well respected organization that represents library interests, and of which Dr. Hayden was once President. So it should hardly be a surprise that the ALA supports Hayden's nomination.

But, in Lowery's telling, this is all really about piracy, because well over a decade ago, Eisgrau happened to run the group P2P United, which represented a bunch of P2P applications in lobbying Congress to teach them about the technology and the fact that it had plenty of non-infringing uses. The group once helped raise money to pay off the $2,000 fine that the RIAA forced upon a 12-year-old honor student who downloaded some music. And, as Eisgrau noted at the time, contrary to Lowery's claim that his group was about supporting piracy, the group had always spoken out against piracy, but warned about the harm of throwing out the baby (P2P technology) with the bathwater of infringement by some users.

But, really, Lowery's statement is not the craziest one we've seen. That award goes to a press release I received yesterday from a group called The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) trumpeting that "Obama nominee to Library of Congress led a pro-obscenity group!" Oh really? Of course, it turns out that the "pro-obscenity group" is also the famous and well respected... American Library Association. NCOSE insists they're "pro-obscenity" and "pro-porn" because the ALA has long fought against mandatory internet filters in libraries.

President Obama has announced his intention to nominate Dr. Carla Hayden, former president of the American Library Association, to the post of Librarian of Congress. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) believes that the pro-pornography agenda of the ALA raises concerns about Dr. Hayden’s nomination.

"The American Library Association (ALA) has been on a campaign to prevent the use of pornography-blocking Internet filtering systems on public library computers since the 1990s," said Patrick Trueman, president and CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. "The ALA even filed suit in 2001 against the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), written by U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The act was designed to protect children from pornography by requiring the use of Internet filters on computers at public libraries receiving federal funds. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this statute as constitutional. Yet, the ALA during Dr. Hayden’s tenure as president opposed this common sense measure and distorted the Supreme Court’s decision regarding it, as it continues to do to this day."

That, of course, is a massive misstatement of history. The ALA opposed mandatory filters not because it's "pro-obscenity" but because those filters don't work (both in that they block a lot more than porn, including important educational resources, and in that lots of porn still gets through) and because libraries believe in the importance of freedom to access information. That doesn't mean that it's okay for children to surf porn, but that there are better ways to deal with that than mandatory filters on all computers (even ones exclusively used by adults).

Librarians are dedicated and committed to providing an enriching and safe online experience for children and adults alike. We care deeply about children and all of our library users. We have taken numerous steps to help communities develop policies and programs that ensure that their library users have a positive online experience. Based on our extensive experience working with children and their parents everyday throughout the country, we know what works. More than 95 percent of public libraries have Internet-access policies that were created with community input. These policies set forth the community’s rights and responsibilities for conducting productive, safe Internet use. The vast majority of library patrons use the Internet responsibly, as outlined by their communities’ policies....

... Just as every parent is a little different, every local community has its own set of priorities based on its geography, demographics and size - to name just a few of the factors.

This presents a major problem with the Children’s Internet Protection Act. This legislation imposes a one-size-fits-all mechanical solution on libraries that are as diverse as our families and takes away local and parental control, ceding it to unaccountable filtering companies. Blocking technologies come between librarians and their mission - to connect people with a broad range of information to meet their needs.

The filtering mandate imposed by Congress is unworkable in the context of a public institution because it restricts access to constitutionally protected speech on the users served by libraries. No filtering or blocking technology exists that blocks access only to speech that is obscene, child pornography or harmful to minors. And no filtering technology protects children from all objectionable materials. many of you will have seen the March issue of Consumer Reports evaluating several filtering software products; the best of the products failed to block one objectionable site in five.

We’re concerned that filters give parents a false sense of security that their children are protected when they are not. Not all problems brought on by transformative technological innovation, like the Internet, have technological solutions, at least in the short term. We believe that education is more effective than filters—kids need to make good decisions about what they read and view, no matter where they are. To be sure, this is a collaborative effort between parents, teachers, librarians and many others.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act is a misnomer. The legislation does not strictly limit access for minors, but for adults and all Internet users in a library.

If this is the best that people can come up with, hopefully it means that Hayden's nomination will sail through. But, boy, people are reaching deep to argue that the American Library Association is either "pro-piracy" or "pro-pornography" by misrepresenting events from over a decade ago, and magically tying them to Dr. Hayden.